# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental Population > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-21988 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** September 10, 2012 - **Citation:** 77 FR 55530 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039; FXES11130900000C6-123-FF09E30000] RIN 1018-AX94 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental Population AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) in Wyoming are recovered and are no longer in need of protection as part of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Therefore, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Wyoming's gray wolf population is stable, threats are sufficiently minimized, and a post-delisting monitoring and management framework has been developed. Therefore, this final rule returns management for this species to the appropriate State, Tribal, or Federal agencies; management in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges will continue to be guided by existing authorizing and management legislation and regulations. Finally, this action makes obsolete and removes the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area established in 1994 to facilitate reintroductions. DATES: This rule becomes effective on September 30, 2012. ADDRESSES: This final rule, comments received, and additional supporting information are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039. Additional background information is also available online at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/. Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone 303-236-7400. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division; telephone 303-236-7400. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents Executive Summary Background —Delisting Wolves in Wyoming —Previous Federal Actions —Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Its Wolf Management Plan —Species Description and Basic Biology —Recovery Planning and Implementation ○ Recovery Planning and the Development of Recovery Criteria ○ Monitoring and Managing Recovery ○ Recovery by State ○ Recovery by Recovery Area ○ Genetic Exchange Relative to our Recovery Criteria ○ Conclusion on Progress Towards our Recovery Goals Summary of Comments and Recommendations —Technical and Editorial Comments —The Delisting Process and Compliance with Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policy —Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Gray Wolf Recovery Goals —The Geographic Scope of Recovery and the Impact of This Decision on Range —General Comments on Whether To Delist —Human-Caused Mortality —Gene Flow and Genetic Diversity —Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms —Public Attitudes Toward Wolves —Other Potential Threat Factors —Cumulative Impacts of Threats —Post-Delisting Monitoring —Positives and Negatives of Wolf Restoration —Native American Tribal Considerations Summary of Factors Affecting the Species —Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. ○ Suitable Habitat ○ Unoccupied Suitable Habitat ○ Currently Occupied Habitat ○ Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range —Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes. ○ Commercial or Recreational Uses ○ Overutilization for Scientific or Educational Purposes —Factor C. Disease or Predation. ○ Disease ○ Natural Predation ○ Human-caused Mortality —Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. ○ National Park Service ○ National Wildlife Refuges ○ Tribal Lands ○ Forest Service ○ State Regulatory Mechanisms ○ Environmental Protection Agency —Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence. ○ Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf ○ Genetic Considerations ○ Poison ○ Climate Change ○ Catastrophic Events ○ Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure as a Result of Human-caused Mortality Conclusion (Including Cumulative Impacts) Significant Portion of the Range Analysis Post-Delisting Monitoring Effects of the Rule Required Determinations —Paperwork Reduction Act —National Environmental Policy Act —Executive Order 13211 —Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes References Cited Authority List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Regulation Promulgation Executive Summary (1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action This rulemaking is necessary to remove gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Delisting is appropriate because gray wolves in Wyoming are recovered and are no longer in need of protection as part of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Wyoming's gray wolf population is stable, threats are sufficiently minimized, and a post-delisting monitoring and management framework has been developed. This action also makes obsolete and removes the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area established in 1994 to facilitate reintroductions. (2) Major Provision of the Regulatory Action This action is authorized by the Act. We are amending § 17.11(h), subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing the entry for “Wolf, gray [Northern Rocky Mountain DPS]” under MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We are also amending § 17.84, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing and reserving both paragraphs pertaining to experimental populations of “Gray wolf ( Canis lupus )”: (i) and (n). In short, this action removes the gray wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and makes obsolete and removes the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area established in 1994 to facilitate reintroductions. (3) Costs and Benefits We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the status of the subject species. Background Delisting Wolves in Wyoming This rulemaking is separate and independent from, but additive to, the previous action delisting wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011). We conclude that this approach is appropriate given the Congressional directive to reissue our 2009 delisting, which created a remnant piece of the NRM DPS. This approach is also consistent with our 2009 delisting determination, which stated that “if Wyoming were to develop a Service-approved regulatory framework it would be delisted in a separate rule” (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15155). This rule is separate from prior actions to remove the other portions of the NRM DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Outside Wyoming, this rule will not affect the status of the gray wolf in the portions of the NRM DPS under State laws or suspend any other legal protections provided by State law. Previous Federal Actions In 1967, we determined the eastern timber wolf ( C. l. lycaon ) in the Great Lakes region was threatened with extinction (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). In 1973, we added the NRM gray wolf ( C. l. irremotus ) to the U.S. List of Endangered Fish and Wildlife (38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973). Both of these listings were issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. In 1974, these subspecies were listed as endangered under the Act of 1973 (39 FR 1158, January 4, 1974). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf ( C. l. baileyi ) as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 17736) in Mexico and the United States Southwest. Later in 1976, we listed the Texas gray wolf subspecies ( C. l. monstrabilis ) as endangered in Texas and Mexico (41 FR 24062, June 14, 1976). Due to questions about the validity of subspecies classification at the time and issues associated with the narrow geographic scope of each subspecies, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf as endangered at the species level ( C. lupus ) throughout the coterminous 48 States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The exception was Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. This rule also provided assurance that this reclassification would not alter our intention to focus recovery on each population as separate entities. Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for: The Great Lakes in 1978 (revised in 1992) (Service 1978, entire; Service 1992, entire); the NRM region in 1980 (revised in 1987) (Service 1980, entire; Service 1987, entire); and the Southwest in 1982 (Service 1982, entire). A revision to the Southwest recovery plan is now under way. In 1994, we established nonessential experimental gray wolf populations under section 10(j) of the Act (50 CFR 17.84(i)), in portions of Idaho, Montana, and all of Wyoming, including the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). These designations assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroductions in central Idaho and in Yellowstone National Park (YNP). The Yellowstone Experimental Population Area included the entire State of Wyoming. In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf population in States and on Tribal lands with Service-approved post-delisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)). The NRM gray wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the third successive year (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). In light of this success, we once reclassified and twice delisted all or part of this population (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). These reclassification and delisting rules were overturned by U.S. District Courts ( Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010). Each of these rulemakings and the subsequent litigation are discussed below. In 2003, we reclassified the coterminous 48-State listing into three DPSs including a threatened Western DPS, a threatened Eastern DPS, and an endangered Southwestern DPS (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). The Western DPS, centered around the recovered NRM gray wolf population, included California, northern Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, northern Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. This rule also removed the protections of the Act for gray wolves in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern States where the species historically did not occur. Finally, this rule established a special 4(d) rule to respond to wolf-human conflicts in areas not covered by existing nonessential experimental population rules. In 2005, the U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Vermont concluded that the 2003 final rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the Act ( Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). Both courts ruled the Service improperly downlisted entire DPSs based just on the viability of a core population. The courts' rulings invalidated the April 2003 changes to the gray wolf listing under the Act. In 2003, we also published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking announcing our intention to delist the Western DPS as the recovery goals had been satisfied (68 FR 15876, April 1, 2003). This notice explained that delisting would require consideration of threats, and that the adequacy of State wolf management plans to address threats in the absence of protections of the Act would be a major determinant in any future delisting evaluation. In 2004, we determined that Montana's and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels (Williams 2004a; Williams 2004b). However, we also found the 2003 Wyoming legislation and plan were not adequate to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population (Williams 2004c). Wyoming challenged this determination, and the United States District Court in Wyoming dismissed the case ( State of Wyoming, et al., v. United States Department of Interior, et al., 360 F.Supp.2d 1214, (D. Wyoming 2005)). Wyoming's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful ( State of Wyoming, et al. v. United States Department of Interior, et al., 442 F.Supp.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2006)). This challenge was resolved on procedural grounds because Wyoming failed to identify a final agency action necessary for judicial review. In 2005, Wyoming petitioned us to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by recognizing a NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Freudenthal 2005, entire). In 2006, we announced a 12-month finding that Wyoming's petition (delisting wolves in all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming State laws and its 2003 wolf management plan did not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf population (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). Wyoming challenged this finding in Wyoming Federal District Court. This challenge was rendered moot by Wyoming's revisions to its laws and management plan in 2007, which allowed delisting to move forward. On February 27, 2008, a Wyoming Federal District Court issued an order dismissing the case ( State of Wyoming, et al., v. United States Department of Interior, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 2:06-CV-00245). In 2008, we issued a final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008). This DPS included Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, north-central Utah, eastern Washington, and Wyoming. This DPS was smaller than the 2003 Western DPS and more closely approximates the historical range of the originally listed NRM gray wolf in the region and the areas focused on in both NRM recovery plans (39 FR 1175 January 4, 1974; Service 1980, pp. 3, 7-8; Service 1987, pp. 2, 23). The Service removed protections across the entire DPS after Wyoming revised its wolf management plan and State law. At the time, we concluded this Wyoming framework provided adequate regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007). Environmental litigants challenged this final rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The plaintiffs also moved to preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Service's implementation of the final delisting rule ( Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008)). The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf population that lacked evidence of natural genetic exchange between subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 wolf management plan because the State failed to commit to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs. In addition, the court concluded we acted arbitrarily in approving Wyoming's 2007 post-delisting management framework that contained a Wyoming statute allowing the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to diminish Wyoming's Wolf Trophy Game Management Area (Trophy Area) if it “determines the diminution does not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's management of wolves.” In light of the court order, on September 22, 2008, we asked the court to vacate the final rule and remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court granted our request (Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 9:08-CV-00056-DWM (D. Mont 2008)). The court's order invalidated the February 2008 rule designating and delisting the NRM DPS. Following the July 18, 2008, court ruling, we reexamined the NRM DPS and Wyoming's statutes, regulations, and management plan. This reevaluation considered several issues not considered in the previous evaluation. We determined that the best scientific and commercial data available demonstrated that: (1) The NRM DPS was not threatened or endangered throughout “all” of its range (i.e., not threatened or endangered throughout all of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming portion of the range represented a significant portion of the range where the species remained in danger of extinction because of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Thus, on April 2, 2009, we published a final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing the DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, except in Wyoming, where wolves continued to be regulated as a nonessential experimental population under 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) (74 FR 15123). The decision to retain the Act's protections only in Wyoming was consistent with a March 16, 2007, Memorandum Opinion issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, “The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its Range' ” (M-Opinion) (Department of the Interior 2007, entire). The final rule determined that Wyoming's existing regulatory framework did not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf population if the protections of the Act were removed and stated that, until Wyoming revised its statutes, regulations, and management plan, and obtained Service approval, wolves in Wyoming would remain protected by the Act (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). The 2009 rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana by environmental litigants and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming by the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, and Park County, Wyoming. On August 5, 2010, the U.S. District Court for Montana ruled on the merits of the case and vacated our April 2009 final rule ( Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Salazar, et al., 729 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010)). The court concluded that the NRM DPS must be listed or delisted in its entirety. The court rejected the rule's approach allowing protection of only a portion of the species' range because it was inconsistent with the Act's definition of “species.” Thus, before delisting could occur, Wyoming had to develop a regulatory framework that was determined by the Service to be adequate to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population. The court's ruling invalidated the 2009 rule designating and delisting most of the NRM DPS. On October 26, 2010, in compliance with the order of the U.S. District Court for Montana, we published a final rule notifying the public that the Federal protections in place prior to the 2009 delisting had been reinstated (75 FR 65574). Wolves in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, north-central Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana were again listed as endangered. Former special rules designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho as nonessential experimental populations were likewise reinstated. Additionally, the NRM gray wolf DPS established by the April 2, 2009, final rule was set aside. Because wolves in Wyoming were not delisted by the April 2, 2009, final rule, their listed status was not affected by the October 26, 2010, rule. Following the Montana District Court decision, the United States Congress passed, and President Obama signed, H.R. 1473, Public Law 112-10—The Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (hereafter referred to as the 2011 Appropriations Act). Section 1713 of the law directed the Service to reissue its April 2009 delisting rule. The Service complied with the Appropriations Act on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590). Thus, gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, eastern Oregon, north-central Utah, and eastern Washington were once again delisted. The constitutionality of section 1713 of the 2011 Appropriations Act was upheld in the Montana District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ( Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al., v . Salazar, et al., case no. CV 11-70-M-DWM; Alliance for the Wild Rockies, et al., v. Salazar, et al., case no. 11-35670). The Department of Interior withdrew the M-Opinion on this topic on May 4, 2011 (Department of the Interior 2011, entire). As for the Wyoming challenge to the April 2009 partial delisting rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), a United States District Court for Wyoming ruled in favor of the Wyoming plaintiffs on November 18, 2010 ( Wyoming et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122829). The court rejected the Service's recommendation that the entire State of Wyoming be designated as a Trophy Area, and the court found this position to be arbitrary and capricious, because it was not supported by the administrative record. The court stated that the record indicated only northwestern Wyoming, which has the vast majority of the State's suitable habitat, was biologically essential to maintaining the NRM population. However, the court did not render an opinion on whether Wyoming's current plan, including the size and location of its 2007 Trophy Area, was sufficient. Instead, the court remanded the matter to us to reconsider whether Wyoming's regulatory framework would maintain its share of a recovered wolf population and provide adequate genetic connectivity. Subsequent to this order, the Service and the State reinitiated discussions on revisions to the State's wolf management framework that would satisfy the standards of the Act and allow delisting to again move forward. These discussions led to an agreement and modification of the Wyoming wolf management plan (WGFC 2011, entire). On October 5, 2011, we proposed to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 61782). This proposal relied on Wyoming's 2011 wolf management plan (WGFC 2011, entire) and noted that conforming changes to State law and regulations would be required to allow Wyoming's plan to be implemented as written. Following publication of the proposal, Wyoming revised its State statutes and gray wolf management regulations (chapter 21) and developed gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47) and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. On May 1, 2012, we reopened the public comment period on our October 5, 2011, proposal to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents (77 FR 25664, May 1, 2012). Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Its Wolf Management Plan The 2009 rule stated that “until Wyoming revises their statutes, management plan, and associated regulations, and is again Service approved, wolves in Wyoming continue to require the protections of the Act” (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). This rule specifically expressed concern over: (1) The size and permanency of the Trophy Area; (2) conflicting language within the State statutes concerning whether Wyoming would manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves, exactly 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves, or only 7 breeding pairs and 70 wolves; and (3) liberal depredation control authorizations and legislative mandates to aggressively manage the population down to minimum levels. In early 2011, we began discussions with Wyoming seeking to develop a strategy to address each of these issues. In August 2011, the Service and the State of Wyoming announced the framework of an agreement that we conclude will maintain a recovered wolf population in Wyoming (WGFC 2011, appendix I). Since this agreement, Wyoming has incorporated these changes into its regulatory framework. Below we summarize the key points in the agreement relative to the three overarching Service concerns highlighted above. First, Wyoming made the existing Trophy Area permanent by incorporating it into State statute. In total, Wyoming wolves will be managed as game animals year-round or protected in about 38,500 square kilometers (km 2 ) (15,000 square miles (mi 2 )) in the northwestern portion of the State (15.2 percent of Wyoming), including YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and private lands, the National Elk Refuge, and most of the Wind River Indian Reservation (Lickfett 2012). This area of Wyoming contains the majority of suitable wolf habitat within the State. Wolves will be designated as predatory animals in the remainder of the State (predator area). The above protected and permanent game areas (see Figure 1) include: 100 percent of the portion of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) recovery area within Wyoming (Service 1987, Figure 2); approximately 79 percent of the Wyoming portion of the primary analysis area used in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement on The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to YNP and Central Idaho (1994 Environmental Impact Statement) (areas analyzed as potentially being impacted by wolf recovery in the GYA) (Service 1994, Figure 1.1); the entire home range for 24 of 27 breeding pairs (88 percent), 40 of 48 packs (83 percent), and 282 of 328 individual wolves (86 percent) in the State at the end of 2011 (Service et al. 2012, Tables 2, 4, Figure 3; Jimenez 2012a; Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.); and approximately 81 percent of the State's suitable habitat (including over 81 percent of the high-quality habitat (greater than 80 percent chance of supporting wolves) and over 62 percent of the medium-high-quality habitat (50 to 79 percent chance of supporting wolves) (Oakleaf 2011; Mead 2012a)). BILLING CODE 4310-55-P ER10SE12.000 BILLING CODE 4310-55-C The State of Wyoming also addressed our prior concern that the size of the Trophy Area would affect natural connectivity and genetic exchange. State wolf management regulations (chapter 21(4)(a)(ii)) commit to managing wolves in Wyoming so that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not threaten the population. The State's wolf management plan further clarifies a goal for gene flow of at least one effective natural migrant per generation entering into the GYA, as measured over multiple generations (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 9, 26-29, 54). To assist in this goal, a Wyoming statute provides for a seasonal expansion of the Trophy Area approximately 80 kilometers (km) (50 miles (mi)) south for 4 and a half months during peak wolf dispersal periods (WGFC 2011, pp. 2, 8, 52). We conclude that this seasonal protection will benefit natural dispersal. Furthermore, Wyoming commits to an adaptive management approach that adjusts management if the above minimum level of gene flow is not documented (WGFC 2011, pp. 26-29; WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7). Finally, translocation of wolves between subpopulations would be used as a last resort, only if necessary to increase genetic interchange (WGFC 2012, p. 7). These efforts would be coordinated with Montana and Idaho (WGFC 2012, p. 7). Next, Wyoming agreed to maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in portions of Wyoming outside YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation (WGFC 2011, pp. 1-5, 16-26, 52). Importantly, this commitment does not reflect an intention by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to reduce the population down to this minimum population level. Rather, Wyoming intends to maintain an adequate buffer above minimum population objectives to accommodate management needs and ensure uncontrollable sources of mortality do not drop the population below this minimum population level (WGFC 2011, p. 24; WGFC 2012, pp. 3-5). The wolf populations in YNP and on the lands of sovereign nations will provide an additional buffer above the minimum recovery goal. From 2000 to the end of 2011 (the most recent official wolf population estimates available), the wolf population in YNP ranged from 96 to 174 wolves, and between 6 to 16 breeding pairs. While a lower future population level in YNP is predicted (between 50 to 100 wolves and 5 to 10 packs with 4 to 6 of these packs meeting the breeding pair definition annually) (Smith 2012), YNP will always provide a secure wolf population providing a safety margin above the minimum recovery goal. The Wind River Indian Reservation typically contains a small number of wolves (single digits), which sometimes form packs that count toward Tribal population totals. On the whole, we expect the statewide wolf population in Wyoming will be maintained well above minimum recovery levels. Another substantial improvement is Wyoming's management framework inside the Trophy Area. For example, Wyoming removed statutory mandates for aggressive management of wolves (WGFC 2011, pp. 24, 52). Previous Wyoming law required aggressive management until the population outside the National Parks fell to six breeding pairs or below. The Service was concerned with Wyoming's previous State law, and it has been remedied. Additionally, Wyoming agreed that wolves in the permanent Trophy Area would not be treated as predatory animals (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 16-17, 23). Past State laws allowed depredating wolves within the Trophy Area to be treated as predatory animals under certain circumstances at the discretion of the State Game and Fish Commission (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 16-17, 23). Wyoming modified W.S. 23-1-302(a)(ii) to ensure it does not apply to wolves in the Trophy Area. This change is a substantial improvement over current Wyoming law that will provide for a wolf population in Wyoming (outside of YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation) that always maintains at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 individuals. Furthermore, Wyoming established defense-of-property regulations that are similar to our nonessential experimental population rules (50 CFR 17.84(n)) (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22-23, 30-31, 53). Also, Wyoming's management of depredating wolves will be similar to Service management under the Act's protections (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22-23, 30-31, 53). Such rules were in place in Montana and Idaho prior to delisting and allowed continued population growth. These management approaches constitute an additional improvement over the framework Wyoming had in place for most of 2008. These and other improvements discussed in more detail below have addressed the Service's concerns about wolf management in Wyoming and make this delisting rule possible. Appropriate changes have been incorporated into State statute, State regulations, and the Wyoming wolf management plan. Species Description and Basic Biology Gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) (40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and geographic region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In the NRM region, adult male gray wolves average just over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh about 20 percent less than males. Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821). Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once-widespread species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995, entire). Gray wolf populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414). Gray wolves continue to occur in large numbers in Canada and Alaska and are now well connected to the restored NRM wolf populations (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-548; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-1106; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2001, pp. iii, v-vi, 13, 21-22, 30-32, 38, 42, 44-46; Boitani 2003, p. 322; Sime 2007; vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4412; Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1). Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolf prey in the NRM region is composed mainly of elk ( Cervus canadensis ), white tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), moose ( Alces alces ), and (in the GYA) bison ( Bison bison ). Bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ), mountain goats ( Oreamnos americanus ), and pronghorn antelope ( Antilocapra americana ) also are common but less important wolf prey, at least to date. Wolves normally live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM region, pack sizes average 7 wolves but are slightly larger in protected areas. A few complex packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of YNP (Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2012, Tables 1-3). Packs typically occupy large territories from 518 to 1,295 km 2 (200 to 500 mi 2 ). Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available prey, intraspecific conflict (wolf-on-wolf conflict), other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas as they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11-17). Typically, only one male and female in each pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 243-24; Service et al. 2012, Tables 1-3). Females and males typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds and may annually produce young until they are over 10 years old. In the NRM region, litters are typically born in April and range from 1 to 7 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 1989-2012, Tables 1-3). Most years, 80 percent of pups survive until winter (Service et al. 1989-2012, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in YNP is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack, and pups can be reared by another pack member, should their parents die (Boyd and Jimenez 1994, entire; Packard 2003, p. 38; Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. Wolf populations have been shown to increase rapidly if mortality is reduced after severe declines (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2012, Table 4). For detailed information on the biology of this species see the “Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves” section of the April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the coterminous United States (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804). Recovery Planning and Implementation This section includes a detailed discussion of the recovery criteria including their development, continuous evaluation, and revision as necessary. Additionally, this section includes our summary of progress towards recovery including an assessment of whether the criteria are met. This section discusses the entire NRM population because the recovery criteria apply to the entire population. Recovery Planning and the Development of Recovery Criteria —As general background, recovery plans are not regulatory documents, but are instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may become available that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan. For NRM gray wolves, we formed the Interagency Wolf Recovery Team to complete a recovery plan for the NRM population shortly after it was listed (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 1987, p. i). The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to reestablish and maintain viable populations of the NRM wolf ( C. l. irremotus ) in its former range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). This plan did not include recovery goals (i.e., delisting criteria). The 1980 plan covered an area similar to the NRM DPS, as it was once believed to be the range of the purported NRM wolf subspecies. It recommended that recovery actions be focused on the large areas of public land in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. The 1987 revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the subspecies designations may no longer be valid and simply referred to gray wolves in the NRM region. Consistent with the 1980 plan, it also recommended focusing recovery actions on the large blocks of public land in the NRM region. The 1987 plan specified recovery criteria of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas including: (1) Northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands); (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) the YNP area (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery areas, but it encouraged connectivity between recovery areas. However, no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the recovery areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 1994, pp. 1-15, 16; Service 1999, p. 2). Since completion of the 1987 recovery plan, we have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and when necessary modify, the recovery goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1). The 1994 Environmental Impact Statement reviewed the wolf recovery standards in the NRM region and the adequacy of the recovery goals to assure that the 1987 goals were sufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). We were particularly concerned about the 1987 definition of a breeding pair because it included two adult wolves `capable' of producing offspring instead of two adult wolves that had actually produced offspring. We also believed the relatively small recovery areas identified in the 1987 plan greatly reduced the amount of area that could be used by wolves and would almost certainly eliminate the opportunity for meaningful natural demographic and genetic connectivity. We conducted a thorough literature review of wolf population viability analysis and minimum viable populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf populations, surveyed the opinions of the top 43 wolf experts in North America (of which 25 responded), and incorporated our own expertise into a review of the NRM wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement and a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, pp. 26-38). Our 1994 analysis concluded that the 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We also concluded, “Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater resiliency than indicated by theory,” and theoretical treatments of population viability “have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population size” (Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). Based on our analysis, we redefined a breeding pair as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least two pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous breeding season. We also concluded that “Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have a high probability of long term persistence” because it would contain enough individuals in successfully reproducing packs that were distributed over distinct but somewhat connected large areas, to be viable for the long term (Service 1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated that the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, appendix 8, 9). In defining a “Recovered Wolf Population,” we found “in the northern Rockies a recovered wolf population is 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3 areas for 3 successive years with some level of movement between areas” (Service 1994, pp. 6-7). We further determined that a metapopulation of this size and distribution among the three areas of core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population that would fully achieve our recovery objectives. For more than 15 years, we have concluded that movement of individuals between the metapopulation segments could occur either naturally or by human-assisted migration management (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). Specifically, the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement stated “The importance of movement of individuals between subpopulations cannot be overemphasized. The dispersal ability of wolves makes such movement likely, unless wolves were heavily exploited between recovery areas, as could happen in the more developed corridor between central Idaho and YNP. Intensive migration management might become necessary if 1 of the 3 subpopulations should develop genetic or demographic problems” (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). The finding went on to say that human-assisted migration should not be viewed negatively and would be necessary in other wolf recovery programs (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). Furthermore, we found that the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding pairs of wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years was reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into the foreseeable future. We did caution that the numerical recovery goal was somewhat conservative, and should be considered minimal (Service 1994, pp. 6-75). We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, appendix 9). We attempted to resurvey the same 43 experts we had contacted in 1994 as well as 43 other biologists from North America and Europe who were recognized experts about wolves and conservation biology. We asked experts with a wide diversity of perspectives to participate in our review. In total, 53 people provided their expert opinions regarding a wide range of issues related to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, including wolf population viability analyses from other areas (Bangs 2002, pp. 1-9). Despite varied professional opinions and a great diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought genetic exchange, either natural or human-facilitated, was important to maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population viability. Reviewers also believed the proven ability of a breeding pair to show successful reproduction was a necessary component of a biologically meaningful breeding pair definition. Reviewers recommended other concepts/numbers for recovery goals, but most were slight modifications to those we recommended in our 1994 analysis. While experts strongly (78 percent) supported our 1994 conclusions regarding a viable wolf population, they also tended to believe that wolf population viability was enhanced by higher, rather than lower, population levels and longer, rather than shorter, demonstrated timeframes. A common minority recommendation was an alternative goal of 500 wolves and 5 years. A slight majority of reviewers indicated that even the 1987 recovery goal of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female capable of breeding) in each of 3 distinct recovery areas may be viable, given the persistence of other small wolf populations in other parts of the world. Based on the above review and considering all available information, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, pp. 1-9). We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs as well as by the number of wolves because wolf populations are maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use “breeding pairs” (packs that have at least one adult male and at least one adult female and that raised at least two pups until December 31) to describe successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 7-8; Mitchell et al. 2008, p. 881; Mitchell et al. 2010, p. 101). The breeding pair metric includes most of the important biological concepts in wolf conservation, including the potential disruption of human-caused mortality that might affect breeding success in social carnivores (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 89; Wallach et al. 2009, p. 1; Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 1). Specifically, we thought it was important for breeding pairs to have: Both male and female members together going into the February breeding season; successful occupation of a territory (generally 500-1,300 km 2 (200-500 mi 2 )); enough pups to replace themselves; offspring that become yearling dispersers; at least four wolves at the end of the year, which is near the population low point (note that the absolute low point occurs in April just before pups are born); all social structures and age classes represented within a wolf population; and adults that can raise and mentor younger wolves. We also determined that an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and individual wolves among the three States and the three recovery areas is an essential part of achieving recovery. Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf recovery and long term wolf population viability is dependent on its distribution as well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. Uniform distribution is not necessary. But a well-distributed population is necessary to maintain proportionate numbers of packs and individuals in all three recovery areas. This approach will maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to all three recovery areas and most of the region's suitable habitat. Such an approach will retain sizable subpopulations within easily traversable distances from one another and, thus, facilitate natural connectivity. Following the 2002 review of our recovery criteria, we began to use States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2012, Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation structure would be best conserved by equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008, p. 10522). This approach made each State's responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume the responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a shared recovery area that was the responsibility of the adjacent State. State regulatory authorities and traditional management of resident game populations occur on a State-by- State basis. We determined that management by State would still maintain a sizable wolf population in each core recovery area because they each contain manmade or natural refugia from intensive human-caused mortality (e.g., wilderness and roadless areas, National Parks, and remote Federal lands) that provide a stronghold for wolf populations in each State. Recovery targets by State promote connectivity and genetic exchange between the metapopulation segments by avoiding management that focuses solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively distinct core recovery areas. This approach also will increase the numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA because it is shared by all three States. A large and well-distributed population within the GYA is especially important because it is the most isolated recovery segment within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). To recap, we have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and, when necessary, modify, these recovery goals (Service 1980; Service 1987; Service 1994, appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995; Bangs 2002, entire). The 1980 recovery plan required simply that we reestablish and maintain viable populations within its former range where feasible. The 1987 recovery plan further quantified the goals by requiring a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the YNP area. In 1994, we revised the definition of a breeding pair (redefined as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least two pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous breeding season) and added a requirement that there be genetic exchange (preferably natural, but human assisted if needed) between subpopulations. In 2002, we conducted a peer review of the above information, which led us to reaffirm the conclusions reached above (i.e., the definition of wolf breeding pairs, our view of population viability, and what constitutes recovery), but moved us towards counting recovery by State in addition to by recovery area. Finally, every NRM rulemaking conducted over the last decade has also included a peer review in which reviewers were asked to weigh in on our conclusions. The vast majority of these reviewers supported our conclusion on long term population viability assuming these criteria were maintained. In the most recent peer review, four of the five peer reviewers concurred with our conclusion that the Wyoming wolf population, whose management is to be driven by the recovery goals, would continue to be a viable population after delisting (Atkins 2011, pp. 6, 10; Atkins 2012, p. 3). Those peer reviewers who specifically addressed the recovery criteria were unanimously supportive of the criteria (Atkins 2011, appendix B). For example, Dr. Scott Mills stated that the thresholds for delisting are consistent with current state-of-the-art viability analysis science and are an appropriate standard for delisting (Atkins 2011, p. 60). Similarly, Dr. David Mech concluded that the recovery criteria still seem adequate (Atkins 2011, p. 73). None of the reviews provided by the independent peer reviewers challenged the adequacy of the recovery criteria (Atkins 2011, appendix B). The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum number of breeding pairs and individual wolves needed to achieve and maintain recovery. Because the NRM wolf population must always exceed the recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, we required that Montana and Idaho each manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter. This 50 percent safety margin above minimum recovery levels was intended to provide an adequate safety margin, recognizing that all wildlife populations, including wolves, can fluctuate widely over a relatively short period of time. Managing for a buffer above the minimum recovery target is consistent with our 1994 determination that the addition of a few extra pairs would add security to the population and should be considered in future management planning (Service 1994, pp. 6-75). Additionally, because the recovery goal components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is near its annual low point (note the absolute low point occurs in April just before spring litters are born), the average annual wolf population will be higher than these minimal goals. Because Wyoming, unlike Montana and Idaho, has a large portion of its wolf population in areas outside the State's control (e.g., YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation), we developed an approach for Wyoming that recognizes this fact, but still holds the State to the same commitment to achieve the desired safety margin above the minimum recovery goal. Specifically, we determined that at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves at mid-winter in Wyoming outside YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation will satisfy Wyoming's contribution to NRM gray wolf recovery. Under this approach, the wolf populations in YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation will provide a buffer above the minimum recovery goal. We conclude that the YNP wolf population can effectively buffer the rest of the Wyoming wolf population because of the amount of available habitat in the park, the sizable wolf population the park does now and will continue to support, and the relative security of the park population. Wyoming's wolf population will be further buffered because WGFD intends to maintain an adequate buffer above minimum population objectives to accommodate management needs so that uncontrollable sources of mortality do not drop the population in Wyoming outside of YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation below the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum population levels (WGFC 2011, p. 24; WGFC 2012, pp. 3-5). The State of Wyoming also intends to coordinate with YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation to contribute to the objective of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves statewide, including YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation. This approach in Wyoming is biologically superior to a single statewide standard in that: It provides population stability outside the park, minimizing the chances of a bad year in YNP compromising maintenance of the minimum recovery goal; it adds an extra layer of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to the GYA's gray wolf population; and it builds public tolerance for a minimum wolf population outside YNP. Further justification for this approach to wolf management after delisting and an additional explanation of why we view this approach as superior for wolf conservation in Wyoming long term is included in Issue and Response 18 below. To summarize, based on the information above, the current recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf population is: Thirty or more breeding pairs (an adult male and an adult female that raise at least two pups until December 31) comprising 300+ wolves well-distributed between Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming functioning as a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange (either natural or, if necessary, agency-managed) between subpopulations. This goal further holds Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to each maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves at the end of the year. To provide that these minimum levels are not compromised, Montana and Idaho each are required to manage for a population minimum of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves at the end of the year. So as not to risk relisting and to provide management flexibility, Montana and Idaho intend to manage well above these minimum required levels. In Wyoming, the State will maintain the entire minimum recovery goal of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves outside of YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation. So as not to risk relisting and to provide management flexibility, Wyoming also intends to manage well above these minimum required levels. A sizable wolf population in YNP and in the Wind River Indian Reservation will further buffer the population so that minimum recovery goals are not compromised. Our recovery and post-delisting management goals were designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population with sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy for their long term conservation. After evaluating all available information, we conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates the population will remain viable following delisting if the recovery targets continue to be met. Monitoring and Managing Recovery —In 1989, we formed an Interagency Wolf Working Group (Working Group) composed of Federal, State, and Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; Service et al. 1989-2012, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic recovery tasks, in addition to the standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; (2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting other nonlethal measures, or by killing them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); (3) conduct research and publish scientific publications on wolf relationships to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, livestock, and people; and (4) provide accurate science-based information to the public and mass media so that people could develop their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed perspective. The minimum size and distribution of the wolf population is estimated by the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is published in an interagency annual report (Service et al. 1989-2012, Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored approximately 2,000 wolves in the NRM region to assess population status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve conflict with livestock. The Working Group's annual minimum population estimates represent the best scientific and commercial data available regarding minimum year-end NRM gray wolf population size and trends, as well as distributional and other information. Recovery by State —At the end of calendar year 2000, the NRM population first met its overall numerical and distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 30 breeding pairs and more than 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 2012, Table 4). Because the recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the temporal element of recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 when at least 663 wolves and at least 49 breeding pairs were present (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). By the end of 2011, the NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal for 12 consecutive years, while the temporal portion of the recovery criterion has been met for 10 consecutive years (Service et al. 2012, Table 4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006). By the end of 2011, the NRM gray wolf population included a minimum population estimate of 1,774 wolves (including at least: 653 in Montana; 746 in Idaho; 328 in Wyoming; 18 in Washington; and 29 in Oregon) in 109 breeding pairs (including at least: 39 in Montana; 40 in Idaho; 27 in Wyoming; 2 in Washington; and 1 in Oregon). Distribution at the end of 2011 is illustrated in Figure 2. Population trends through the end of 2011 are illustrated in Figure 3. BILLING CODE 4310-55-P ER10SE12.001 ER10SE12.002 BILLING CODE 4310-55-C Recovery by Recovery Area —As discussed previously, after the 2002 peer review of the wolf recovery efforts, we began using States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2012, Table 4). However, because the 1987 Recovery Plan (Service 1987, pp. v, 12, 23) included goals for core recovery areas, we have included the following discussion on the history of the recovery efforts and status of these core recovery areas, including how the wolf population's distribution and metapopulation structure is important to maintaining its viability and how the biological characteristics of each core recovery area differ (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area's 84,800 km 2 (33,386 mi 2 ) includes: Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Wolves in this recovery area were listed and managed as endangered species. Wolves naturally recolonized this area from Canada. Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream et al. 1989, entire). The natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 17-19), the interim control plan (Service 1988, 1999, entire), and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 1991, pp. 7-13). By 1996, the number of known wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. However, from 1996 through 2004, the minimum estimated number of breeding pairs and wolves in northwestern Montana fluctuated at a low level, partly due to actual population size and partly due to limited monitoring effort. However, since 2005, it has steadily increased (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). At the end of 2011, we estimated a minimum of 431 wolves in 25 breeding pairs in the northwestern Montana recovery area (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat and it is naturally more fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 560; Smith et al. 2010, p. 622). Some of the variation in our minimum wolf population estimates for northwestern Montana is also due to the difficulty of counting wolves in the area's thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana also prey mainly on white-tailed deer, resulting in smaller packs and territories, which lower the chances of detecting a pack (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878). Increased monitoring efforts in northwestern Montana by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks since 2005 were likely responsible for more accurate minimum population estimates. Wolf numbers in 2003 and 2004 also likely exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves, but were not documented simply due to less intensive monitoring those years (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). By the end of 2011, this recovery area contained more than 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for the seventh consecutive year (2005-2011), and probably did so for the last 10 years (2002-2011) (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). Routine dispersal of wolves has been documented among northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and adjacent Canadian populations demonstrating that northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically and genetically linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-548; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-1106; Sime 2007; vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4412; Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1). Because of fairly contiguous but fractured suitable habitat, wolves dispersing into northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to join or form new packs and supplement this segment of the overall wolf population (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd et al. 1995, p. 140; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2010; Thiessen 2007, p. 50; Sime 2007; Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1). Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness complex, northwestern Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large numbers of overwintering wild ungulates and few livestock. Therefore, wolf numbers may not ever be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in the central Idaho or the GYA recovery areas. However, wolves have persisted in this area for over 30 years, the population is robust today, and habitat there is capable of supporting hundreds of wolves (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan (Montana Wolf Management Advisory Council 2003), provides that this population segment will continue to thrive. The Central Idaho Recovery Area's 53,600 km 2 (20,700 mi 2 ) includes the Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in central Idaho; and adjacent parts of southwestern Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves from Alberta, Canada, were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British Columbia were released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Central Idaho contains the greatest amount of highly suitable wolf habitat compared to either northwestern Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559). Consequently, the central Idaho area population has grown substantially and expanded its range since reintroduction. As in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's increase in its minimum wolf population estimate beginning in 2005 was likely due to an increased monitoring effort by Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The central Idaho population peaked in 2008 and appears to have declined since then (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). We estimated a minimum of 797 wolves in 43 breeding pairs in the central Idaho recovery area at the end of 2011 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). This recovery area has contained at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves for 14 consecutive years (1998-2011) (Service et al. 2012; Table 4). The GYA recovery area (63,700 km 2 (24,600 mi 2 )) includes portions of southeastern Montana, eastern Idaho, and northwestern Wyoming. Portions of Wyoming that are occupied by wolves (Figure 1 above) include most of YNP, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway; the Absaroka Beartooth, Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Gros Ventre, Jedediah Smith, North Absaroka, Popo Agie, Teton, Washakie, and Winegar Hole Wilderness Areas; the Dubois Badlands, Owl Creek, Scab Creek, and Whiskey Mountain Wilderness Study Areas; and adjacent public and private lands (Service 1994, p. iv). Much of the wilderness portions of the GYA are only used seasonally by wolves due to high elevation, deep snow, and low productivity (in terms of sustaining year-round wild ungulate populations) (Service et al. 2012, Figure 3; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). In 1995, 14 wolves representing 3 family groups from Alberta were released in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips and Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). In 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 wolves representing 4 family groups from British Columbia. Finally, 10 pups were removed from northwestern Montana in a wolf control action and released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Two of these pups became breeding adults and their genetic signature is common both in YNP and the GYA (vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4421). We estimated a minimum of 499 wolves and 38 breeding pairs were in the GYA at the end of 2011 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). By the end of 2011, this recovery area had at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves for twelve consecutive years (2000-2011) (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). Wolf numbers in the GYA were relatively stable from 2007 through 2009 with around 450 wolves and between 33 and 38 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). In 2010 and 2011, the GYA population grew to about 500 wolves with 37 to 38 breeding pairs, primarily because numbers of wolves outside YNP in Wyoming grew while wolves in YNP have declined. Specifically, wolves in YNP declined from highs of around 170 wolves and between 11 and 16 breeding pairs in 2003, 2004, and 2007 to around 100 wolves and between 6 and 8 breeding pairs in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (Service et al. 1998-2012, Table 2). This decline in YNP likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP was saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appeared to limit population density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than when reintroduction took place (White and Garrott 2006, p. 942; Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259); and (4) suspected outbreaks of disease in 2005 and 2008 (canine distemper (CD) or possibly canine parvovirus (CPV)) reduced pup survival to 20 percent (Service et al. 2006, 2009, Table 2; Smith et al. 2006, p. 244; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-20; Almberg et al. 2010, p. 2058). YNP predicts wolf numbers in YNP may settle into a lower equilibrium long term (Smith 2012). Maintaining wolf populations safely above recovery levels and promoting demographic and genetic exchange in the GYA segment of the NRM DPS will depend on wolf packs living outside the National Park and wilderness portions of northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana (vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4422). Genetic Exchange Relative to our Recovery Criteria —Finally, as noted above, the recovery criteria requires the NRM DPS to function as a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations. The available data conclusively demonstrate that this portion of the recovery criteria (i.e., “genetic exchange”) is met. Specifically, vonHoldt et al. (2010, p. 4412) demonstrated 5.4 effective migrants per generation among the subpopulations from 1995 through 2004 when the NRM region contained between 101 and 846 wolves. Dispersal data of radio-collared wolves also demonstrates genetic exchange satisfying this criteria (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-1106; Jimenez et al. In review, entire). This issue is discussed further in Factor E below. Conclusion on Progress Towards our Recovery Goals —Given the above, the best scientific and commercial information available demonstrates that all prongs of the recovery criteria are met. The numeric and distributional components of the overarching recovery goal have been exceeded for 12 consecutive years, while the temporal portion of the recovery criterion has been met for 10 consecutive years. Furthermore, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have each individually met or exceeded the minimum per-State recovery targets every year since at least 2002 and met or exceeded the minimum management targets every year since at least 2004. It is also worth noting that each of the recovery areas (which were originally used to measure progress towards recovery) have been documented at or above 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves every year since 2005 (and probably exceeded these levels every year since 2002) (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). Finally, the available evidence demonstrates that the NRM gray wolf population is functioning as a metapopulation with gene flow between subpopulations. Thus, we conclude that the population has recovered. Summary of Comments and Recommendations On October 5, 2011, we opened a 100-day comment period in which interested parties could submit comments or information on the proposal (76 FR 61782). This proposal relied heavily on Wyoming's wolf management plan and noted that conforming changes to State law and regulations would be required to allow Wyoming's plan to be implemented as written. Wyoming modified its State statutes and implementing regulations and amended its wolf management plan in early 2012. On May 1, 2012, we reopened the comment period for 15 days so the public could comment on the proposal in light of these new or revised management documents (77 FR 25664, May 1, 2012). In total, the comment period was open from October 5, 2011, through January 13, 2012, and from May 1, 2012, through May 16, 2012 (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 77 FR 25664, May 1, 2012). We also held a public hearing and an open house on the proposal on November 15, 2011, in Riverton, Wyoming (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011). Collectively, during the 115-day comment period, we received approximately 250,000 comments. Comments were submitted by a wide array of parties, including the general public, environmental organizations, groups representing outdoor recreational interests, agricultural organizations, and Federal, State, and local governments. In accordance with our Interagency Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994), the proposed rule underwent peer review. Specifically, we contracted with an independent consultant to assemble a scientific peer review to review the proposed rule and its supporting information, including the Wyoming wolf management plan. This report was delivered to the Service and posted online for public review and comment in late 2011. While the peer review report was largely supportive of the scientific basis, analysis, and conclusions of the delisting proposal, the peer review report made a number of suggestions including recommending Wyoming further clarify how it intends to meet its management objectives in the face of multiple human-caused mortality factors. Following revision to the State law, regulations and management plan, we reopened the comment period. Accordingly, the independent expert peer reviewers were provided an opportunity to revise or supplement their review during the reopened comment period. We reviewed and considered all comments in this final decision. Substantive comments received during the comment periods and new information have been addressed below or incorporated directly into this final rule. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together under subject headings in a series of “Issues” and “Responses.” Technical and Editorial Comments Issue 1: Numerous technical and editorial comments and corrections were provided by respondents on various parts of the proposal. Several peer reviewers and others suggested or provided additional literature to consider in the final rule. Response 1: We corrected and updated this final rule wherever appropriate and possible. We considered scientific publications and other literature recommended by peer reviewers and others. This information was incorporated, as appropriate, into this final rule. Issue 2: Some comments noted that the population estimates provided would be more accurately described as minimum population estimates because the method of only counting confirmed wolves underestimates the wolf population. A few comments noted that more wolves exist in Wyoming than show up on our description of abundance and illustrations of distribution (i.e., Figures 1 and 2 in the proposed rule (76 FR 61872, October 5, 2011)). Similarly, the peer reviewers suggested that, while these data are indicative of trends, they should not be used to characterize or quantify small year-to-year changes in the population. One peer reviewer recommended that Wyoming's monitoring protocols incorporate detection probabilities into its methodology. Other comments questioned the methods used to estimate population levels (particularly in Montana and Idaho) and suggested the resulting estimates were flawed. A few comments suggested our population estimates in Montana and Idaho were likely too optimistic given the ongoing hunts. Some comments suggested erroneous population estimates undermined the legitimacy of hunting quotas. Response 2: We agree that end-of-year population estimates should be referred to as population minimums as we only count confirmed wolves, packs, and reproduction. Furthermore, we recognize that while our population data are a reasonably good indicator of relative changes and general trends over time, they should not be used to indicate exact year-to-year changes. We have modified our discussion of population estimates and changes over time throughout the rule to reflect these facts. Similarly, our illustration of wolf packs and their home range only illustrates confirmed packs and their home range if known. Thus, should any undocumented packs or lone wolves exist, they would not be illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Additionally, because the population is measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is near its annual low point (note the absolute low point occurs in April just before spring litters are born), the average annual wolf population will be higher than these minimal estimates. Although there have been some criticisms of the methods Montana and Idaho employ to estimate minimum wolf abundance, distribution, and trends, we have the utmost confidence these numbers are reliable and, if anything, underestimate actual abundance and distribution at the end of the year. The monitoring methods for each State are further described below. Montana wolf packs are monitored year round. Common wolf monitoring techniques include direct observational counts, howling and track surveys, use of trail cameras, and public wolf reports. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks seeks to document pack size and breeding pair status of known packs, to verify wolf activity in new areas that can result in new packs forming, to document dispersal to the extent possible and assess connectivity, to determine pack territories, and to identify potentially affected private landowners and livestock producers. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks conducts ground tracking and aerial telemetry 1 to 2 times per month to locate radio-collared animals, determine localized use throughout the year, and document the number of wolves traveling together. Den and rendezvous sites are visited to document reproduction. Additional information is collected, such as identification of private lands used by wolves, identification of public land grazing allotments where conflicts could occur, and common travel patterns. Monthly or semimonthly telemetry flights throughout summer and fall keep track of wolf numbers and status. At the end of the year, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks compiles information gathered through field surveys, telemetry, and public reporting to estimate the minimum number of wolves in each pack, lone dispersing animals, and successful breeding pairs (an adult male and a female wolf that have produced at least two pups that survived until December 31). The total number of packs is determined by counting the number of packs with two or more individual animals that existed on the Montana landscape on December 31. If a pack was removed because of livestock conflicts or otherwise did not exist at the end of the calendar year (e.g. as the result of disease, natural/illegal mortality, or dispersal), it is not included in the year-end total or displayed on the Montana wolf pack distribution map for that calendar year. The statewide minimum wolf population is estimated by adding up the number of observed wolves in verified packs and known lone animals as of December 31 each year. This is a minimum count and has been reported as such since wolves first began recolonizing northwest Montana in the mid-1980s. Suspected wolf packs are those that could not be verified with confidence. They are not included in the final minimum estimated count. Suspected packs may or may not persist. This information is used to make decisions to address wolf-livestock conflicts, to set wolf hunting and trapping regulations, and to set harvest quotas. We conclude that Montana's monitoring methods and resulting minimum population estimates is more than adequate to inform wolf management decisions, and as a reliable indicator of the population's recovered status. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Nez Perce Tribe use wolf observation reports from agencies and the public to locate areas of suspected wolf activity and verify wolf presence. Field crews may decide to capture and radio-collar wolves. Radio-collared wolves are then located from the air one or more times per month dependent on a host of factors including funding, personnel, aircraft availability, weather, and other priorities. At the end of the year, they then compile agency-confirmed wolf observations to estimate the minimum number and location of adult wolves and pups that were likely alive on December 31 of that year. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Nez Perce Tribe estimate minimum wolf numbers, distribution, and breeding success by radio-collaring selected packs from representative areas across the State. Wolves are captured through foothold trapping in summer or helicopter darting in winter, and monitored one or more times per month via aerial telemetry. In addition, in recent years Idaho has been placing 20 or more GPS collars on wolves each year; these collars record locations and mortality status several times per day. Pack size and movements are monitored throughout the summer and fall via telemetry. Potential dens and rendezvous sites are identified through telemetry flights (2+ locations in the same area) during summer months (May-September) or ground telemetry and ground searches. Once identified, biologists investigate on the ground to confirm reproduction and count pups. In winter (December-January), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Nez Perce Tribe increase flight frequencies to twice monthly to obtain pack counts and document breeding pairs. If four or more wolves are counted and reproduction was confirmed in summer, the pack is confirmed as a successful breeding pair unless additional information suggests otherwise (e.g., documented mortality that reduced pack size below two adults and two pups). To estimate state-wide minimum population numbers, the number of wolves detected in documented packs with complete counts is added to an estimate of wolves in documented packs without complete counts, plus the number of wolves documented in wolf groups that do not qualify as a pack, and adjusted for lone wolves. We conclude that the monitoring methods employed in Idaho and resulting minimum population estimates are more than adequate to inform wolf management decisions and are a reliable indicator of the population's recovered status. In Wyoming, the WGFD will continue to implement existing protocols and techniques employed by the Service and YNP, which have provided adequate documentation of wolf population status, to determine whether the recovery criteria have been met (WGFC 2011, p. 19). These methodologies are further described in the “Post-Delisting Monitoring” section of the rule below and the “Population Monitoring” section of the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan (WGFC 2011, pp. 17-21). The above techniques have proven a reliable indicator of distribution, abundance, and trends, are more than adequate to inform wolf management decisions, and are a reliable indicator of the population's recovered status. That said, we fully recognize and anticipate that monitoring techniques may change through time as new knowledge becomes available and as the parties responsible for monitoring gain additional experience at wolf management and conservation. For example, we anticipate parties responsible for monitoring may use other survey methods and data that are biologically equivalent to the breeding pair definition. Similarly, new techniques may allow for incorporation of a detection probability as part of the abundance estimation protocol. The Delisting Process and Compliance With Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policy Issue 3: A few comments requested that we provide additional opportunities for public comment by holding additional public hearings or extending the public comment period. Some comments objected to the proposed delisting rule's reliance on Wyoming's wolf management plan when Wyoming laws and regulations, which trump the management plan, had not yet been revised. These comments suggested we must reopen the comment period on the proposal once these revised documents were finalized. Response 3: We provided ample opportunity for public comment on our proposed rule. This included an initial 100-day public comment period, an informational meeting and public hearing, and an additional 15-day public comment period starting May 1, 2012 (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 77 FR 25664, May 1, 2012). All opportunities to comment were announced in the Federal Register , posted on our Web site and in our monthly wolf reports, and publicized in local and national press releases. An informational meeting and a public hearing were both held in Riverton, Wyoming, on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011). Riverton was selected because of its central location and proximity to the portions of Wyoming most affected by decisions on wolf management. Given the fact that we satisfied section 4(b)(5)(E)'s statutory requirement for public hearings on this rule, the limited interest the Riverton hearing garnered (only 10 individuals offered formal testimony at the hearing), and the substantial expense related to conducting public hearings, we declined requests for additional public hearings (Thabault 2011). Furthermore, we reopened the comment period to ensure the public had an opportunity to review and comment on the proposal in light of Wyoming's final regulatory documents, including revised State statutes, revised gray wolf management regulations (chapter 21), new gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47), and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (77 FR 25664, May 1, 2012). Collectively, the opportunities provided for public comment ensured all members of the public, including peer reviewers, had sufficient time to review and comment on the proposal in light of all relevant materials. All comments, whether presented at a public hearing or provided in another manner, received the same review and consideration. Approximately 250,000 comments were received during the public comment periods. This significant effort satisfies our statutory responsibility. Issue 4: Several commenters observed that Wyoming was not a DPS, and suggested that it was a violation of the Act to attempt to delist the Wyoming wolf population alone because the Act precludes listing and delisting entities smaller than DPSs. Specifically, these comments suggested that our analysis of threats improperly focused on the Wyoming wolf population, when we should have considered threats to the entire NRM DPS. Some comments further specified that Congress's recent directive to reissue our 2009 delisting rule, which delisted the NRM DPS except Wyoming, did not grant us the authority to address Wyoming separately. These comments went on to suggest that it would be unlawful to delist wolves in Wyoming if wolves were endangered by any of the five factors in any portion of the NRM DPS at the time of this final rule. These comments went on to assert that wolves in Montana and Idaho were endangered by a variety of factors, most notably inadequate regulation of human-caused mortality affecting both population size and genetic exchange. Idaho's suspension of its 2008-2012 step-down wolf management plan and Montana's and Idaho's hunting seasons were most often mentioned as changes in management threatening the NRM DPS. These comments suggested that all States in the NRM DPS needed to develop enforceable mechanisms to maintain the population's recovered status before delisting in Wyoming could move forward. Response 4: The approach taken in this final rule is appropriate given the Congressional directive to reissue our 2009 delisting, which created a remnant piece of the NRM DPS. This approach is also consistent with our 2009 delisting determination which stated that “if Wyoming were to develop a Service-approved regulatory framework it would be delisted in a separate rule” (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15155). While this rulemaking focuses on Wyoming because it is the only portion of the NRM DPS that remains listed, we consider other portions of the NRM DPS as appropriate. Thus, the conclusions of the previous delisting and the information supporting this determination are incorporated by reference. This information is updated, where necessary, to consider new developments (e.g., Idaho's suspension of its 2008-2012 step-down wolf management plan and Montana's and Idaho's hunting seasons). Overall, the best scientific and commercial information available overwhelmingly indicates wolves are recovered in Wyoming, the GYA, and throughout the NRM DPS. We strongly disagree with the assertion that wolves in Montana and Idaho are endangered or threatened by inadequate regulation of human-caused mortality or any other factor (singularly or in combination). Similarly, we reject that threats in these areas endanger wolves in Wyoming, the GYA or the NRM DPS. Despite changes in guiding management documents, both Idaho and Montana remain committed to maintaining a healthy wolf population well above minimum recovery levels (also see response on the adequacy of the recovery goals below) (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee 2002, pp. 4-5, 18-19; Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2011, pp. 1, 7; Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2012, pp. 8-9; Montana Wolf Management Advisory Council 2003, pp. i,1; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2012b, pp. 2-3, 8-9, 13-15, 22). State management of this recovered population in Montana and Idaho since delisting has been consistent with our expectations and does not place the population at a meaningful risk of extinction now or within the foreseeable future (Cooley 2011; Jimenez 2012b). In fact, the minimum population estimate for the NRM DPS was greater at the end of 2011 than at the end of 2010 (Service 2012, Tables 4a and 4b). This information validates our determination that State-regulated hunting and trapping has been and will continue to be conducted in a responsible manner (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). While we expect population decreases will occur, these reductions will be carefully managed to maintain a recovered gray wolf population throughout the northern Rocky Mountains. In consideration of all threats including those evaluated in our 2009 delisting rule and all new information available since this rule was published, we conclude that the NRM DPS continues to face an extremely low risk of extinction within the foreseeable future, does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered, and therefore, does not warrant listing under the Act. Nevertheless, this rulemaking is separate and independent from, but additive to, the previous action delisting wolves in the NRM DPS. Wolves in the NRM DPS outside of Wyoming are not protected under the Act; therefore, there is no regulatory need to determine whether the Act's protections should be removed for these wolves. Thus, this rule in no way reopens the status of wolves within the NRM DPS and outside of Wyoming. While we continue to monitor the status of wolves in accordance with the post-delisting monitoring plans discussed in the delisting rule, such a reopening of the wider NRM DPSs status also would be inconsistent with the Congressional direction to proceed with that delisting action. This rule does not affect the status of gray wolves in other states within the NRM DPS or the legal protections provided under state laws. Since our previous delisting action, the State of Wyoming has addressed the only reason that wolves in Wyoming warranted continued listing under the Act—the adequacy of the State's regulatory measures. By delisting the Wyoming wolf population after wolves in the larger NRM DPS were delisted, we are doing exactly what we said we would do in our previous delisting rule. In our 2009 rule publication, the Service said that “if Wyoming were to develop a Service-approved regulatory framework it would be delisted in a separate rule” (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15155). This was also referenced in our proposed rule (76 FR 61782, Oct. 5, 2011, p. 61783). The Service is now doing just that—delisting Wyoming wolves in a separate rule following its approval of Wyoming's management framework. Issue 5: Several comments suggested that we should prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Response 5: As a regulation adopted under section 4(a) of the Act, this delisting rule is exempt from National Environmental Policy Act procedures. The Service's decision that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply in making 4(a) determinations is based on the reasoning in Pacific Legal Foundation v . Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981). In this case, the court determined that a National Environmental Policy Act document cannot serve the purposes of the Act, because the Secretary must make listing decisions based only on the five factors set forth in section 4(a) of the Act. The Secretary lacks the discretion to consider environmental impacts beyond those encompassed by the five factors and may use only the best scientific and commercial data in assessing the five factors. Following the Pacific Legal Foundation ruling and upon the recommendation of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Service officially determined that National Environmental Policy Act documents are not required for regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Here, the delisting decision is based on the same five factors used in making listing determinations under section 4(a). Issue 6: A few comments indicated we must consider the direct and indirect impacts of this decision on other threatened and endangered species. One comment indicated that delisting could result in wolf trapping (as is occurring in Idaho and now being planned in Montana), which could affect Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ) or wolverine ( Gulo gulo ). Another comment suggested an unchecked ungulate population would graze on and decimate the Colorado butterfly plant ( Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis ). Similarly, one comment suggested cascading ecological effects would be hindered by State efforts to reduce the wolf population, which in turn would affect water quality for the downstream Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus lucius ) and the Razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ). Response 6: The Act requires that we base listing and delisting decisions solely on the best available information concerning the status of and threats to the subject species and does not give us discretion to alter listing and delisting decisions because of possible impacts to other species. Moreover, other distinct statutory provisions address the potential effects of the States' management actions on listed species, such as the Act's prohibitions against “take” of listed wildlife species or the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify a listed species' critical habitat. Nevertheless, we conclude that this decision will not negatively affect other threatened or endangered species. While one comment mentioned trapping and its potential to affect other regional carnivores like Canada lynx (listed as threatened) and wolverine (a candidate for listing), Wyoming has not proposed a trapping season and has no plans to pursue a trapping season within the Trophy Area (Bruscino 2011b). If such a season is considered in the future, it would be regulated by the WGFD and the WGFC and would be limited as such mortality would further limit Wyoming's hunt quotas, which are already expected to be modest once desired population reductions are achieved. Moreover, the State must comply with applicable laws in performing any trapping actions: if any potential incidental take of listed species were to occur in connection with trapping, the State must comply with the Act's prohibition against “take” or obtain an incidental take permit through the permitting provisions of section 10. Furthermore, the other listed species mentioned by the commenter (Colorado butterfly plant, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker) occur far from occupied wolf range. For example, Colorado butterfly plant occurs in southeastern Wyoming and north-central Colorado. Similarly, neither the Colorado pikeminnow nor the razorback sucker occurs above Flaming Gorge in Wyoming's share of the Green River. Thus, any theoretical cascading ecological effects caused by the wolf delisting (e.g., increased herbivory and impacts to water quality) would be extremely unlikely to affect these species. Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Gray Wolf Recovery Goals Issue 7: Some comments expressed confusion about our minimum recovery criteria and the minimum management targets. Response 7: The Service's current recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf population is 30 or more breeding pairs (an adult male and an adult female that raise at least two pups until December 31) comprising 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations (Service 1994; Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Within this overall goal, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are each responsible for maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in mid-winter. To provide that these minimums are not compromised, we required Montana and Idaho to each manage for a safety margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter. In Wyoming, we agreed that the State could manage for a population floor of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves outside YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation in mid-winter, and allow YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation to provide the remainder of the buffer above the minimum recovery goal. In order to meet these goals and allow for continued management flexibility, all three States intend to manage for a population comfortably above their minimum management targets. Issue 8: Numerous comments questioned the adequacy of the NRM DPS's recovery goals referring to them in such terms as “outdated” and “unscientific.” These comments further suggested that delisting based on these goals violated the Act's requirement to rely on the best available science. Some of these comments offered their own assessment of what constitutes an acceptable recovery goal (ranges from around current population levels to 6,000 wolves were most frequently mentioned). Others suggested smaller localized population levels were acceptable within a larger, connected metapopulation structure. Some comments questioned the adequacy of the NRM DPS's recovery goals by noting that these goals are lower than the Western Great Lakes population when it was listed, lower than the Western Great Lakes recovery goals, and lower than Western Great Lakes potential status review triggers. Some comments opined that the population meets the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) standard for a “vulnerable” species and, therefore, concluded our recovery criteria are inadequate and that the population is still endangered. Response 8: Our recovery and post-delisting management goals were designed to provide for the long term conservation of the NRM gray wolf population by ensuring sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy. As we described earlier in this final rule, we have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and, when necessary, modify, these recovery goals (Service 1980; Service 1987; Service 1994, appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995; Bangs 2002, entire). The Service contracted for an independent peer review of our proposed delisting and four of the five reviewers concurred with our determination that the Wyoming wolf population, whose management is to be driven by the recovery goals, would continue to be a viable population after delisting (Atkins 2011, pp. 6, 10; Atkins 2012, p. 3). The dissenting reviewer's primary issue was not with the recovery criteria, but rather with Wyoming's management structure and whether the recovery criteria would be met (an issue discussed elsewhere in this rule). Those reviewers who specifically addressed the recovery criteria were unanimously supportive of the criteria (Atkins 2011, appendix B). For example, Dr. Scott Mills stated that the thresholds for delisting are consistent with current state-of-the-art viability analysis science and are an appropriate standard for delisting (Atkins 2011, p. 60). Similarly, Dr. David Mech concluded the recovery criteria still seem adequate (Atkins 2011, p. 73). None of the reviews provided by the independent peer reviewers challenged the adequacy of the recovery criteria (Atkins 2011, appendix B). Although numerous comments offered alternative recovery goals, we do not find the information presented to be persuasive, and do not feel revision to the recovery goals is warranted at this time. Most of these comments indicated a need for an effective population of at least 500 breeding individuals long term and a total population of ~1,500 to 6,000 individuals long term either within the NRM DPS or the western United States. However, these comments were based upon minimum viable population theories and models that assume an isolated population. This underlying premise is inappropriate within the NRM region, because NRM wolves are not isolated and are instead genetically connected to vast wolf populations north of the United States-Canadian border. Specifically, the NRM DPS represents a 650-km (400-mi) southern range extension of a vast contiguous wolf population that numbers over 12,000 wolves in western Canada and about 65,000 wolves across all of Canada and Alaska (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2001, pp. iii, v-vi, 13, 21-22, 30-32, 38, 42, 44-46; Boitani 2003, p. 322). This connectivity is demonstrated by the fact that recovery in the NRM DPS began when wolves from Canada naturally dispersed into the northwestern Montana recovery area and recolonized this area (Ream et al. 1989; Boyd et al. 1995; Pletscher et al. 1997; Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Routine dispersal of wolves has been documented among NRM wolves and adjacent Canadian populations since then demonstrating that wolves in these areas are demographically and genetically linked (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-548; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-1106; Sime 2007; vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4412; Jimenez et al. In review, entire). Connectivity to the GYA is discussed in more detail below, but is also sufficient to demonstrate and maintain the region's metapopulation structure. Taking into account connectivity to adjoining Canadian populations, the effective population targets mentioned above have been greatly exceeded. While some contend that these effective population targets should be achieved strictly within the NRM DPS or the western United States, we conclude that it is biologically appropriate to consider the contribution of these connected wolf populations to the NRM DPS's long term viability. Connectivity to Canadian wolf populations has long been a central consideration in developing, revising, and validating our recovery goals (Service 1994, pp. 41-42 of appendix 9; Bangs 2002, p. 3). Furthermore, model predictions should be used cautiously due to the poor quality of data used in most models, inaccuracies in estimating changes in demographic rates, and insufficient dispersal data (Beissinger and Westphal 1998, p. 821). To estimate a minimum viable population accurately, a population viability analysis must be able to overcome the likelihood that measures of potential threats to persistence are likely to be imprecise (Soule 1987, pp. 1-10; Boyce 1992, 1993). Reed et al. (2002, p. 7) also cautioned that model structure and data quality can affect the validity of population viability analysis models, and that population viability analysis should not be used to determine minimum viable population or to estimate specific probability of extinction. Population viability analysis could more appropriately be used to analyze relative rates of extinction (Beissinger and Westphal 1998, p. 821) or how population growth and persistence may be affected by management actions (Reed et al. 2002, p. 7). Therefore, the available modeling data do not persuade us that the recovery criteria we are using are incorrect. Some comments asserted that the NRM gray wolf recovery goals are inadequate because they are lower than population levels in the Western Great Lakes when that population was listed (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We do not find such arguments persuasive because listing decisions are not based on abundance and are instead based on extinction risk informed by threats and population trajectory. For example, although whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) likely numbers in the millions, the Service recently found this species to be warranted for listing due to the severe threats it faces and its resulting population trajectory (76 FR 42631, July 19, 2011). Similarly, the decisions in 1978 to list wolves in the Great Lakes as endangered and to reclassify the Minnesota population as threatened were based on ongoing threats, population trends, and the desire for additional population redundancy (Service 1978, pp. 7, 8, 10; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). Neither decision cited the overall population level as an important factor to justify the threatened or endangered determination. Therefore, we do not agree with the assertion that Western Great Lakes wolf population levels at the time of listing as endangered or threatened provide any evidence that our recovery criteria for wolves within the NRM are too low. Similarly, some comments opined the NRM gray wolf recovery goals are inadequate because they are lower than the Western Great Lakes population's recovery goals. Again, we do not find this argument compelling. The Western Great Lakes recovery plan indicated recovery would be achieved when: (1) The survival of the wolf in Minnesota is assured, and (2) at least one viable population (as defined below) of eastern timber wolves outside Minnesota and Isle Royale in the contiguous 48 States is reestablished. The recovery plan did not establish a specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota wolf population. While the plan did identify a goal “for planning purposes only” of 1,251-1,400 wolves for the Minnesota population (Service 1992, p. 28), the plan explicitly states that the region's total goals “exceed what is required for recovery and delisting of the eastern timber wolf” (Service 1992, p. 27). This planning goal was driven not by minimum estimates of viability, but instead by: Existing populations of 1,550 to 1,750 wolves in Minnesota (Service 1992, p. 4); the plan's objective to maintain existing populations (Service 1992, p. 24); and existing planning goals by other land managers within Minnesota (Service 1992, p. 27). However, population viability and sustainability are explicitly discussed in the plan. The plan states a “viable population” includes either: (1) An isolated, self-sustaining population of 200 wolves for 5 successive years; or (2) a self-sustaining population of 100 wolves within 100 miles of [the other] Western Great Lakes population (Service 1992, pp. 4, 25-26). Furthermore, the plan stated that “a healthy, self-sustaining wolf population should include at least 100 interbreeding wolves * * * [which would] maintain an acceptable level of genetic diversity” (Service 1992, p. 26). Based on the above, we find there is no basis for concluding that the NRM and Western Great Lakes recovery goals are somehow contradictory. Instead, we find that the recovery criteria for the NRM and Western Great Lakes populations are similar in regards to the minimum number of wolves needed to maintain a viable population, their reliance on multiple, adjoining connected populations, and the relative proximity between subpopulations. Furthermore, some comments asserted that our recovery goals and our relisting criteria are inadequate because they are lower than the status review triggers for Western Great Lakes wolves. However, the Western Great Lakes status review triggers were selected, not because they are indicative of population viability (again, the plan's conclusion regarding viability is discussed above), but rather because they would represent significant declines, which could be evidence of a serious problem (Service 2008, pp. 10-11; Ragan 2012). Given the above, we do not find persuasive the assertion that our recovery goals or our status review triggers are too low because they are lower than other wolf population's triggers for relisting consideration. To the extent that these comments advocate for a more responsive status review trigger in the NRMs, we offer our strongest assurance that we will consider relisting if we ever obtain sufficient evidence that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered and, as required by section 4(g)(2) of the Act, we will make prompt use of the Act's emergency listing provisions if necessary to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of the population. Finally, we find unfounded the assertions that the standards of the IUCN indicate that the NRM population currently meets the IUCN's “vulnerable” standard or that IUCN standards indicate our recovery criteria are inadequate. First, the IUCN assessed the gray wolf's status in 2010 and determined the species fell into the “species of least concern” category (Mech & Boitani 2010, p. 1). While such assessments routinely provide localized status determinations, no such determination was bestowed upon wolves in the NRM region. Furthermore, following receipt of this comment, we contacted Dr. Mech, who led the team that performed IUCN's 2010 North American gray wolf assessment. Dr. Mech disagreed with the assertion that the NRM population satisfies IUCN's “vulnerable” standard (Mech 2012). Dr. Mech went on to indicate that any application of the IUCN's standards to the NRM DPS was inappropriate without considering the large, adjoining, and connected Canadian wolf populations, and that if such populations were included in the assessment, the NRM region's wolf population would fall into the “species of least concern” category (Mech 2012). Given the available information, we conclude that the IUCN standards do not indicate that our recovery criteria warrant revision. After evaluating all available information, we conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available continues to support the ability of these recovery goals to provide that the population does not again become in danger of extinction. The Geographic Scope of Recovery and the Impact of This Decision on Range Issue 9: Some comments suggested we should have pursued a single lower-48-State recovery plan instead of regional recovery plans in the NRMs, the Western Great Lakes, and the Southwest. These comments suggested our approach to recovery planning focused only on easy to recover areas and improperly wrote off more difficult to recover regions. A few comments suggested our recovery plans were inadequate because they did not cover or include specific criteria for “significant wolf habitat” (e.g., Colorado). Some comments suggested we should reintroduce wolves across numerous regions of the country to reestablish them across their historical range. Suggested areas for reintroduction included potentially suitable habitat like the southern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, the Sierra Nevadas, and New England, as well as unsuitable habitat like Central Park in New York City. Other comments supported the national delisting of wolves. A number of comments suggested wolves should not have been listed or recovered anywhere in the lower 48 States, because the species ( Canis lupus ) is abundant in Canada, Alaska, and across Eurasia and the reintroduced population's subspecies ( Canis lupus occidentalis ) is abundant across western Canada and into Alaska. Response 9: Possible future wolf recovery efforts, particularly any additional efforts outside of the NRM DPS, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking because such actions are not part of this listing (NRM DPS) and not necessary to provide for a NRM DPS that is neither endangered nor threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Nevertheless, we will clarify our position on these issues. Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional populations of subspecies in the coterminous United States and Mexico, including populations in the Western Great Lakes region, the NRM region, and the Southwest (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967; 38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973; 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 41 FR 17740, April 28, 1976; 41 FR 24064, June 14, 1976). When the science began to cast doubt on the validity of the subspecific taxonomy, we reclassified these listings into a single unit of the species (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). This approach was undertaken to “most conveniently” handle this listing, and was not intended to signal an intention to pursue recovery across the entire lower 48 States (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). In fact, the 1978 reclassification stated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate entities” (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, regional recovery plans were developed and implemented in the Western Great Lakes in 1978 (revised in 1992) (Service 1978, entire; Service 1992, entire), the NRM region in 1980 (revised in 1987) (Service 1980, entire; Service 1987, entire), and the Southwest in 1982 (this plan is currently being revised) (Service 1982a, entire). This approach was an appropriate use of our discretion to determine how best to proceed with recovery actions. These recovery efforts covered all gray wolf populations confirmed in the lower 48 States since passage of the Act, and either have worked, or are working, to conserve all of the genetic diversity remaining in wolves south of Canada after their widespread extirpation (Leonard et al. 2004, entire). Although we have satisfied our recovery planning and implementation responsibilities, and any additional recovery planning and implementation (beyond that already underway) would be discretionary, this issue is being evaluated further by the Service on a larger, national scale and will likely be addressed in a separate action in the future. Similarly, the Act does not require us to restore wolves to a majority of their U.S. historical range or to a majority of the available suitable habitat. Instead, the Act requires that we work to recover species to levels that no longer meet the definition of threatened or endangered. For some species, this level may require range expansion, but the amount of expansion is driven by a species' biological needs affecting viability and sustainability, and not by an arbitrary percent of a species' historical range or suitable habitat. Many other species may be recovered in portions of their historical range by removing or addressing the threats to their continued existence. Other species may be recovered by a combination of range expansion and threats reduction. There is no set formula on how recovery must be achieved. Within the NRM DPS, each of the States and each of the recovery areas meaningfully contributes to the population's viability by providing resiliency, redundancy, and representation (these terms are described further later in this rule; see also Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire). Across the lower 48 States, 2 other wolf populations (Western Great Lakes DPS and Mexican wolf) provide additional resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire). To the extent that additional restoration beyond that required by the Act is desired by some members of the public, we recommend working with State or Tribal wildlife agencies and other land managers to achieve these objectives. Conversely, we do not agree with comments that the gray wolf should not have been listed because of its abundance outside of the lower 48 States. When Congress created the Act, it sought to provide for “the possibility of declaring a species endangered within the United States where its principal range is in another country, such as Canada or Mexico, and members of that species are only found in this country insofar as they exist on the periphery of their range” (H.R. Rep. No. 93-412, at 10 (1973)). Moreover [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-21988. Public record. Not legal advice.